Throatpunch
Banned
war is defined as:a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country.
Given that the Iraq war and Afghanistan were were states of armed conflict between different countries, it was a war.
The Iraq War
- Thread starter Throatpunch
- Start date
-
- Tags
- iraw
Given that the Iraq war and Afghanistan were were states of armed conflict between different countries, it was a war.
eissa
Artanis "Altáriel" Nerwen Nos Finwe
yeah, the atomic explosion in hiroshima is also visual wonder.
Throatpunch
Banned
It is, thats why its called shock and awe.
Rapid dominance (its proper name) is use of overwhelming power and spectacular displays of force to paralyze the enemy's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight.
It was necessary.
Around 135,000 people died in the bombing if American troops invaded Japan then 500,000 to a million could have died.
It's easy to laugh at war, and I get it, it's a "defense mechanism" and whatnot, that, or outright sociopathy, which is less charming
I really doubt, in the end, that Baghdads inhabitants found "shock and awe" to be very exciting or fun, even if they themselves were not directly struck, it has to be fucking terrifying to go through, and as a civilian you are NOT deserving of that kind of treatment - especially when the war itself was illegitimate
Finally, you don't get to snicker at "shock and awe" while at the same time take offense to 911-jokes. Fair should be fair. Not directing this to anybody in particular here, but just a general let's-check-our-cynicism-from-time-to-time shout out...
I really doubt, in the end, that Baghdads inhabitants found "shock and awe" to be very exciting or fun, even if they themselves were not directly struck, it has to be fucking terrifying to go through, and as a civilian you are NOT deserving of that kind of treatment - especially when the war itself was illegitimate
Finally, you don't get to snicker at "shock and awe" while at the same time take offense to 911-jokes. Fair should be fair. Not directing this to anybody in particular here, but just a general let's-check-our-cynicism-from-time-to-time shout out...
Throatpunch
Banned
When ever did anybody take offence to any 911 jokes. When ever did anybody tell any 911 jokes.
I am not pro-Iraq war, but I am sure they felt better about it when they found out Saddam was gone
Who do you mean with they? I am pretty sure that most people in Baghdad and Iraq understood very well who and what Saddam was, but that's not the point. Don't understimate the pride people have in their nation, and what it means when foreign forces - from their point of view - strike at them with pretty much no way of defence. They usually don't forget drone strikes, military actions and anything else that's violating sovereignty. And why should they. Which self respected nation would? There can be no question that the allies also freed Germany in 1945, who experienced the terror of Gestapo, SS and the Nazis as well at that point. But even with knowing this, the German population saw the Allied troops as occupants.
If I consider all of the actions from the last 30 years, and all those killing of which most happend in the middle east. I think future generations will have a hell lot of issues from all of this. People can hold grudges for generations. We don't get most of it here, as it's simply not interesting, but I can't even imagine what it must mean for all the people in said nations. Iraq, Syriah, Lybia, Iran etc. And no one knows how things will be in 50 or 100 years from now. Who will have the most power then? What if there is a civil war the US in 2090, while the middle east started to unite as a coalition? They might be a new power house. And people will remember who killed their grandfathers with drone strikes ... and eventually treat Europe and the US in the same fashion, as we treat them now.
I mean for fucks sake, even today some people still hold a grudge on the Germans for WW2.
A cynical might call those killings in Iraq a war, sure. But for fucks sake, more US soldiers got killed by friendly fire then from Saddams troops.
If anything, it was a punitive action. And a spectable for the American military to flex their muscles.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-re...-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/5308192
If I consider all of the actions from the last 30 years, and all those killing of which most happend in the middle east. I think future generations will have a hell lot of issues from all of this. People can hold grudges for generations. We don't get most of it here, as it's simply not interesting, but I can't even imagine what it must mean for all the people in said nations. Iraq, Syriah, Lybia, Iran etc. And no one knows how things will be in 50 or 100 years from now. Who will have the most power then? What if there is a civil war the US in 2090, while the middle east started to unite as a coalition? They might be a new power house. And people will remember who killed their grandfathers with drone strikes ... and eventually treat Europe and the US in the same fashion, as we treat them now.
I mean for fucks sake, even today some people still hold a grudge on the Germans for WW2.
Nice play of semantics dude, don't be so damn obtuse. You damn well know what I was talking about.
A cynical might call those killings in Iraq a war, sure. But for fucks sake, more US soldiers got killed by friendly fire then from Saddams troops.
If anything, it was a punitive action. And a spectable for the American military to flex their muscles.
That's what I always thought as well, but I tend to believe now that it was more because of the Russians and it could be seen as the herald of the cold war.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-re...-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/5308192
Last edited:
Throatpunch
Banned
What's that supposed to signify. Its a bunch of troop ships, some blimps, and trucks. Are you saying that because they did not mass a load of troops and material up in Iraq somewhere it was not a war?
In fact, there was loads of troops and material in Iraq.
Not really. The Iraq war was a war. It's in the name, Iraq war.
Are you suggesting that the Iraq war was not a war compared to WW2?
Think about the insurgency after though.
That's the occupation. The war, as you said so nicely, was done in mere hours with a couple of air craft carriers.
Like I said, only a cynical would follow the text book describtions here.
Even our Commedians make fun about it.
No, I am saying that a pille up of cars on a motor highway caused by fog saw more casualties on US lives, than this so called Iraq War. Is it technically a war? Sure. I am not arguing against that. But I will be damned before it fits under my definition of a war. Call it arbitrary. But once the US has lost 5, 10 or even 100 thousand of troops in an egagements we will talk again. If you shot someone from 100m with a scoped rifle who was runing at you with a knive at an open field, you could technically call it a fight ... but we know what it really is. Target practise.
Like I said, only a cynical would follow the text book describtions here.
Even our Commedians make fun about it.
Last edited:
Throatpunch
Banned
Comedians making fun does not make it any less of a war.
It's probably a better idea to stick with the established definition of war than pick and mix your own.
But can you write down your definition of war for me? I'm curious.
So 4,486 people died in this car pile up?
Even if it's an accurate number, it's still abismal compared to the loses of the Iraqis in both civilian and military casualties.
It simply is not a war for me. Sorry. You can like that, or not. But it's not like I care.
It simply is not a war for me. Sorry. You can like that, or not. But it's not like I care.
Throatpunch
Banned
Those are some spurious statistics you've got there Crni.
As of May 29, 2012, according to the U.S. Department of Defence casualty website, there were 4,425 total deaths (including both killed in action and non-hostile) and 32,223 wounded in action (WIA) as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
I would say the DoD website is more trustworthy than Wikipedia.
And will tell you what I told you before.
I DON'T GIVE A DAMN FUCK.
This whole thing was not more of a war than a box fight between a 3 year old and Mike Tyson. You call it a war, most of the idiots which supported for "cuz muslims did it!" probably as well. But that doesn't mean jack shit for me, as I am not so cynical to think that Saddam and his forces had even the slightest chance to keep up any noteworthy resistance.
Vietnam was in my opinion the last war the US had to fight. That's my personal definition. Deal with it. Or don't
I DON'T GIVE A DAMN FUCK.
This whole thing was not more of a war than a box fight between a 3 year old and Mike Tyson. You call it a war, most of the idiots which supported for "cuz muslims did it!" probably as well. But that doesn't mean jack shit for me, as I am not so cynical to think that Saddam and his forces had even the slightest chance to keep up any noteworthy resistance.
Vietnam was in my opinion the last war the US had to fight. That's my personal definition. Deal with it. Or don't
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Iraq War isn't a war?
What...
What...
Izak
I Shot The ALBATROSS
That's a really douchey name for a military operation.
Throatpunch
Banned
What about the insurgency after?
You are only thinking about how the US Military smashed Saddam's forces, not the insurgency after. You've got to take the insurgency into account Crni.
Rage and swearing in a civil debate?
Not really, since they were technically freeing the Iraqi's.
Why what do you expect them to call it; Operation Flower Power?
Last edited:
Izak
I Shot The ALBATROSS
I understand the name of the operation, I just think it's douchey, it sounds like the World Police saying "America, fuck yeah!", actually it's sort of reminiscent of that whole 'freedom fries' thing.
Whatever happened to cool Operation names? Do you remember Operation Overlord? Now that was a good name for a military operation!
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Guys, can someone fill me on about the argument?
Izak
I Shot The ALBATROSS
Crni says a genuine war requires large scale battles between at least two parties of roughly equal footing.
Doomsday says a genuine war merely requires acknowledged aggression and battle between two or more parties, and furthermore he contends that whether the two (or more) parties are on equal footing is irrelevant.
Additionally there was some argument over whether the invasion of Iraq was moral or not, but that happened a few pages back and was between different people.
RoboStang
First time out of the vault
Not to get off topic but why don't you think the Gulf War was necessary?
Throatpunch
Banned
Yeah I can agree with you there. The worst one I have heard of personally is Operation Firework Fanfare (really)
These are some badass ones:
- Operation Enduring Freedom
- Operation Desert Storm
- Operation Steel Tiger
- Operation Rolling Thunder
- Operation Tiger Hound
- Operation Silver Bayonet
Yeah, what about that @Crni Vuk?
Last edited: